Black
Powder At Cleveland – Over nine ounces of
black powder was discovered in a carry-on bag at Cleveland (CLE).

Garrote (BOS)

Garrote
Discovered After BDO Referral – Behavior Detection Officers at Boston
(BOS) referred a passenger for additional screening. During the screening, a
serrated wire garrote was discovered in the passenger’s
carry-on bag.

Inert
Ordnance and Grenades Etc. – We continue to find inerthand grenades and other weaponry on weekly basis.
Please keep in mind that if an itemlooks
like a realistic bomb, grenade, mine, etc., it is prohibited - real or not.
When these items are found at a checkpoint or in checked baggage, they can
cause significant delays. I know they are cool novelty items, but it is best
not to take them on a plane. Read here
and here on
why inert items cause problems.

Bandolier Line Charge (ORF)

A
bandolier line charge was discovered after it alarmed in checked baggage at
Norfolk (ORF). It was determined that the item was inert and used by a
contractor who conducts demonstrations for the military. As I’ve said before,
we’re all too familiar with instructors and other people in this type of
business needing these sorts of items for their jobs. As with all inert
training items and replicas, we don’t know they’re not real until we’ve checked
them out. This can include evacuated baggage areas and closed checkpoints which
lead to delays and missed flights. People that need to travel with INERT items
should plan ahead and contact their preferred shipper about mailing the
training aids to their destination. Readhereandhereon
why inert items cause problems at checkpoints.

Eight replica/inert grenades were discovered this week, one in a carry-on bag at Salt
Lake City (SLC), and five others in checked baggage – three at Harrisburg
(MDT), three at Anchorage (ANC), and one at San Diego (SAN). The three grenades
at MDT caused a 1-hour, 8-minute evacuation of the checked baggage area.

Items
in the Strangest Places
–It’s important to check your bags prior to traveling. If a prohibited item is
discovered in your bag, you could be cited and possibly arrested by local law
enforcement. Here are a few examples from this week where prohibited items were
found in strange places.

A
knife was discovered in a laptop at Denver (DEN).

A
saw blade was discovered under the sole of a shoe in a carry-on bag at Ellis
(OAJ).

Stun
Guns – Eight
stun guns were discovered this week in a carry-on bags around the nation: One
each at San Francisco (SFO), Sacramento (SMF), San Juan (SJU), Pittsburgh
(PIT), Akron (CAK), Seattle (SEA), and two at Denver (DEN).

What Not
to Say at an Airport – Statements like these not only delay the people who said
them but can also inconvenience many other passengers if the checkpoint or
terminal has to be evacuated:

A
passenger at Miami (MIA) asked the gate agent: “What if I have a bomb?”

Unfortunately
these sorts of occurrences are all too frequent which is why we talk about
these finds. Sure, it’s great to share the things that our officers are
finding, but at the same time, each time we find a dangerous item, the
throughput is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up
with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. This is a friendly reminder
to please leave these items at home. Just because we find a prohibited item on
an individual does not mean they had bad intentions, that's for the law
enforcement officer to decide. In many cases, people simply forgot they had these
items.

*In order to provide a timely
weekly update, I compile my data from a preliminary report. The year-end numbers
will vary slightly (increase) from what I report in the weekly updates.
However, any monthly, midyear, or end-of-year numbers TSA provides on this blog
or elsewhere will not be estimates.

The first item you have noted as a "Garrote" makes it sound as if it was designed to be a weapon. I have one of these. It's simply a wire saw. I'm not saying it should be allowed on a plain, I feel it should not. Just saying it's not sold as a weapon.

Over nine ounces of black powder was discovered in a carry-on bag at Cleveland

Ooh, that's almost enough to... not do much at all. Even assuming it is actually "black powder" and not just a powder that happens to be black.

Garrote Discovered After BDO Referral

Firstly, it was a METAL wire garotte, and thus would have been found by metal detectors. Second, anyone with a corded computer mouse, luggage strap, purse strap, etc can strangle someone. And all of those are allowed.

Inert Ordnance and Grenades Etc.

Inert= not a threat

A knife was discovered in a laptop at Denver

Sounds interesting... until you realize it was probably just a pocket knife or swiss army knife.

A saw blade was discovered under the sole of a shoe in a carry-on bag at Ellis

What kind of blade? Sawz-all? Circular saw? Coping saw? Jigsaw? Hacksaw? Wood saw? And, besides, what's the possibility that a passenger will cut the plane in two by hand with a saw blade??

Eight stun guns were discovered this week in a carry-on bags around the nation

Good catch- the passengers might have been able to stun the pilot- oh, wait the cockpit doors are locked. So a terrorist with a stun gun could only, what, stun one, maybe 2 passengers before the rest pummel them into a meaty salsa?

A passenger at Miami (MIA) asked the gate agent: “What if I have a bomb?”

Your TSA agents need to be taught the difference between a statement ( "I have a bomb!") and a question ("What, perchance, might happen if I were to have a bomb?"). Eh, what do we really expect from people hired off ads on gas pumps and pizza boxes.

-

So, yet AGAIN, most of the stuff on the weekly report is either: 1) stuff that would have been found by simple pre-9/11 metal detectors instead of expensive scanners or BDOs2) stuff that is not actually dangerous3) stuff that, on first glance sounds dangerous, but is actually so vaguely described that it could be almost anything4) TSA Screeners taking out their frustrations on a passenger who dared ask a question.

Bob, the wire saw, which you dramatically call a "garotte" was metal, so your screeners should have seen it in the carry-on x-ray machine. So why bother giving credit to your "behavior detection officer" for the find? Was it because your carry-on baggage screener missed it? What did your "bdo" detect anyway? A guy who had something he wasn't sure would make it through, but was not a threat to airline safety?

Was anyone arrested by law enforcement for your "garotte" incident? Did TSA find a master assassin or harrass a camper?

Regarding the instruction materials your screeners found, were they prohibited items, or did they just need a quick double check? How long was the instructor delayed and was he allowed to take the items on the plane once TSA realized he was not a terrorist? Was law enforcement summoned at any time during this incident?

Why force business people to waste money shipping items that are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage? Is it because your screeners aren't being trained properly on how to handle unusual items?

Everything is a weapon. If a wire survival saw is a weapon so is a shoelace or a bra strap or a violin string or a draw string from a hoodie or a pair of sweatpants. There is an ad for ana knife sharpener on TV that sharpens a credit card enough to slice a tomato. My all time favorite is the broken piece of a CD. If you take crystal deodorant out of its plastic holder it is a rock.

Anonymous said... "garote" or "saw". No trees on a plane, but plenty of necks.

It'd be pretty slow and messy to try sawing off people's heads with that.

Either way its a prohibited item, TSA prohibits all kinds of saws all the time.

Actually, searching for 'saw' just brings up prohibitions on "Tools longer than 7 inches" and that passengers are "prohibited from traveling with sharp objects in your carry-on baggage". The survival saw in question is not "sharp", per se, but you might be able to argue that it's a "tool" that's longer than 7 inches.

I understand the desire to keep inert grenade paperweights off of planes. Although if someone pulled it out on the plane, they would likely be beaten to a pulp by the other passengers. If you want to keep knives and camping saws off of planes, I can live with that. I don't think they are a threat to the plane or pilots any more.

However, I am tired of the silly liquid restrictions. Several years ago, some guys had an idea about blowing up a plane with liquids. They didn't have plane tickets and their plot wasn't even viable. Yet, we are still stuck with liquid restrictions years later.

The restrictions need to be relaxed. The TSA has the ability to test liquids. I should be able to take a bottle of water or toothpaste through security. For some reason one 500 ml bottle of water is forbidden, but if I divide it into five 100 ml bottles, somehow that water magically becomes safe. It makes no sense.

Thank you for providing a necessary service that at times must seem thankless. Some of the gripers seem to be the same kind of person who resents the highway speed limits that save the lives of themselves and others.

Anonymous said...Thank you for providing a necessary service that at times must seem thankless. Some of the gripers seem to be the same kind of person who resents the highway speed limits that save the lives of themselves and others.

January 15, 2013 at 8:40 AM.........................

Thankless because of TSA's abusive and unneeded policies.

Unlike speed limits that can be demonstrated to improve safety nothing TSA is doing can be shown to do anything to improve safety.

TSA cannot show one instance of a liquid explosive nor one instance of a shoe bomb on any U.S. originating flight, ever, yet TSA continues to restrict liquids and require shoe removal for no purpose.

Many TSA procedures have no basis in security so TSA deserves no thanks.

Anonymous said..."Thank you for providing a necessary service that at times must seem thankless. Some of the gripers seem to be the same kind of person who resents the highway speed limits that save the lives of themselves and others."January 15, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Why would you say that, Anonymous?

The unconstitutional searches and threats against the right to travel done by the TSA are uncomparable with state highway speed laws.

Being critical of the TSA is not in any way a criminal act nor an immoral act.

TSA screeners are not law enforcement, and should not be treated as such.

The rules and policies set up by the TSA are not the same as codified state criminal law.

It appears that most comments are written by the same person who couldn't meet TSA hiring standards. Yes, effective PR is important for any organization I cannot dispute that. But if you truly look at the evolution of the TSA, they finally have leadership at the top with an actual counterterrorism background who is attempting to correct the errors of his predecessors and bring common sense to the TSA. for example the Precheck screening and risk based security initiatives. Is it a great organization, maybe not. Is it trying to get better? Give it a chance.

It's amazing how many people, passengers, pilots and crew members have forgotten why TSA is in place! Some things may not make sense but surely it's to protect us. The problem is people think they are smarter then the government and they know everything about TSA and other government agencies because they watch 3 hours of CNN and listen to a bunch of anti-government idiots. Get it together people wake up!

Why does the TSA continue to fight people's rights to film at the checkpoint as evidenced in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4_xG-VIfuDE

Look at how many TSA workers are involved here. The TSA website clearly says that filming is permitted, yet that message doesn't seem to get passed along to the workers at the checkpoint. Why is it so difficult to train your employees.

The unconstitutional searches and threats against the right to travel done by the TSA are uncomparable with state highway speed laws.

Being critical of the TSA is not in any way a criminal act nor an immoral act.

TSA screeners are not law enforcement, and should not be treated as such.

The rules and policies set up by the TSA are not the same as codified state criminal law.-------------Unconstitutional? Not according to the United States Supreme Court, the one body of experts that the Constitution itself gives authority to interpret the meaning of the words in the document and those of who wrote it. SCOTUS does not seem to have an issue with TSA’s searches, not as they are written in their procedures. It’s when TSA folks go outside of those procedures that SCOTUS and lower courts take issue. So the fact is, the searches are completely within the confines of the Constitution despite your personal belief’s.

Being critical of someone for their job and performing it as instructed is indeed immoral. Maybe its your definition of what is and is not moral that needs adjustment.

Screeners are not law enforcement officers, and you are right they should not be treated as such. They are Regulatory Enforcement Officers. I don’t see anyone here suggesting that they are law enforcement officers except “maybe” you. We get it, you don’t like cops. OK, that’s not an unreasonable position, not really. Many people don’t. Does that change the fact that cops are needed in our society? Nope, not one bit. Just as Regulatory Enforcement Officers are needed. You might find an education on the subject of assistance when you next put fingers to keyboard. Knowing what you are talking about is the best way to have others consider your opinion worth considering.

Another TSAnonymous said..."It's amazing how many people, passengers, pilots and crew members have forgotten why TSA is in place! Some things may not make sense but surely it's to protect us... January 17, 2013 at 1:28 AM"

ROTF! Of course! Everything the government does is ONLY to protect US citizens, and NO government employee or elected official has EVER done anything for their own benefit, even if it's detrimental to the public.

"Knowing what you are talking about is the best way to have others consider your opinion worth considering. "

Agreed. So perhaps you could cite cases where the virtual strip-search scanners and full grope were allowed by the supreme court? There are none, so you can't. The cases that TSAgentRon has cited in the past have already been debunked. Yes, they allow administrative searches. But those searches are extremely limited in scope, which TSA's procedures exceed.

Anonymous said So the fact is, the searches are completely within the confines of the Constitution despite your personal belief’s.

For now. And see comment above.

Being critical of someone for their job and performing it as instructed is indeed immoral. Maybe its your definition of what is and is not moral that needs adjustment.

HAhahaha! Being critical of someone for their job is immoral?! Yup, right up there with stealing, lying, and killing! I think you need to look up the definition of "immoral" before you blithely hand out advice.

I don’t see anyone here suggesting that they are law enforcement officers except “maybe” you. We get it, you don’t like cops. OK, that’s not an unreasonable position, not really. Many people don’t.

Actually, many people think TSA screeners are law enforcement, and have stated so here and other places. I wanted to be sure you knew the facts.

You make a wildly wrong assumption that I don't like police. Not sure if you're projecting or what, but you're wrong.

You might find an education on the subject of assistance when you next put fingers to keyboard. Knowing what you are talking about is the best way to have others consider your opinion worth considering.

Hmmm...trying to insult my education and telling me to shut up. How very condescending and patronizing of you. Weird how you took time to "consider [my] opinion" and respond at length while simultaneously deeming it unworthy.

Let's have two planes going to all locations and one plane without the tsa much quicker and no silly inspections the other plane has the tsa and all it's silly stuff going on all I would ask is that you guys in a hurry stay off the plane I'm on I will gladly wait and put up with theSILLY STUFF

Anonymous said...Let's have two planes going to all locations and one plane without the tsa much quicker and no silly inspections the other plane has the tsa and all it's silly stuff going on all I would ask is that you guys in a hurry stay off the plane I'm on I will gladly wait and put up with theSILLY STUFFJanuary 20, 2013 at 9:08 PM

OK. Thanks! Have a safe flight, if you aren't prevented from getting on your "silly stuff" plane by a TSA screener who decides you can't fly today.

Wintermute said...[["Knowing what you are talking about is the best way to have others consider your opinion worth considering. "

Agreed. So perhaps you could cite cases where the virtual strip-search scanners and full grope were allowed by the supreme court? There are none, so you can't. The cases that TSAgentRon has cited in the past have already been debunked. Yes, they allow administrative searches. But those searches are extremely limited in scope, which TSA's procedures exceed.]]

Let’s set the record straight there WM, YOUthink that they exceed the limited scope of the restrictions of the Administrative Search.

So far the current case law on the subject strongly suggests you are incorrect, but with time that may change. The courts are quite fickle in many ways, and if any of the court cases that support your point of view ever make it the Supreme Court then they may indeed decide that our searches are beyond the scope of the Administrative Search restrictions. As of this time though, there is no case law stating that they violate the 4th Amendment, and I am aware of no current case that has the likelihood of ever reaching the Supreme Court’s docket. Your version of the law gets laughed out of court on a regular basis, but there is always a chance…

"So far the current case law on the subject strongly suggests you are incorrect, but with time that may change. The courts are quite fickle in many ways, and if any of the court cases that support your point of view ever make it the Supreme Court then they may indeed decide that our searches are beyond the scope of the Administrative Search restrictions. As of this time though, there is no case law stating that they violate the 4th Amendment, and I am aware of no current case that has the likelihood of ever reaching the Supreme Court’s docket. Your version of the law gets laughed out of court on a regular basis, but there is always a chance…"

So, just to understand completely, what you're saying, aside from the insults yet again, is that there is no case law supporting TSA's position on this. Which is exactly what I claimed. So, your position is that it's legal as long as the TSA doesn't get struck down by the Supreme Court, even though appellate courts have struck down much less invasive searches?

Wintermute said...[[Let’s set the record straight there WM, YOU think that they exceed the limited scope of the restrictions of the Administrative Search."So far the current case law on the subject strongly suggests you are incorrect..."So... To set the record straight, IN YOUR OPINION, "so far current case law..." Or are you a law expert now, too? I don't claim to be one, but you certainly appear to be implying that you are one.]]

Current law on administrative searches does support TSA’s efforts. That’s not just my opinion but the opinion of the judges who decide these cases. And while I am no attorney, they are. As for my “expertise”, I have never claimed to be an attorney, but I am a very good researcher on subjects of this type. I’m always looking for new cases on the subject (google is your friend, as is your local law library), and have yet to find a single cases that directly address’ any illegality of TSA’s screening procedures. I have found a few about TSO’s who have gone beyond the scope of the procedures and thereby have infringed on a person’s rights, but none about the procedures themselves. This happens to police officers pretty commonly, but I see no one here suggesting that we disband all police forces because of the actions of one or two (or 100) officers who went beyond their legal restrictions, as is so common with the posters here concerning the TSA.

"As for my “expertise”, I have never claimed to be an attorney, but I am a very good researcher on subjects of this type."

See your past arguments about medical devices (specifically, your "research" on continuous blood glucose monitors, circa 2009, I believe) for proof that you are not a particularly effective researcher. ;)

Like RB, I also thought that my guitar strings look a lot like that garrote. How does TSA actually distinguish a garrote from guitar strings or wire saws? There must be an accurate / fair way of doing so...